The solution of the Continuum Problem gen. suparcomapct card. (2/11) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Strong Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem of stationary logics, game reflection principles and generically supercompact cardinals

Sakaé Fuchino (渕野 昌)

Graduate School of System Informatics, Kobe University, Japan

(神戸大学大学院 システム情報学研究科) http://fuchino.ddo.jp/index.html (2019 年 7 月 28 日 (15:08 JST) version) 2019 年 6 月 17 日 (於 16th Asian Logic Conference) This presentation is typeset by pL

AT

EX with beamer class.

The most up-to-date version of these slides is downloadable as

http://fuchino.ddo.jp/slides/nur-sultan2019-06-pf.pdf

The solution of the Continuum Problem

• gen. suparcomapct card. (2/11)

A The solution of the Continuum Problem

• gen. suparcomapct card. (2/11)

◮ The continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large.

A The solution of the Continuum Problem

• gen. suparcomapct card. (2/11)

◮ The continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large. ⊲ Provided that a sufficiently strong and reasonable reflection principle should hold. ◮ The continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large. ⊲ Provided that a Laver-generically supercompact cardinal should

• exist. Under a Laver-generically supercompact cardinal, in each of

the three scenarios, the respective reflection principle in the sense of above also holds.

The results in the following slides ...

• gen. suparcomapct card. (3/11)

are going to appear in joint papers with André Ottenbereit Maschio Rodriques and Hiroshi Sakai: [1] Sakaé Fuchino, André Ottenbereit Maschio Rodriques and Hiroshi Sakai, Strong downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, I, submitted. http://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-x.pdf [2] Sakaé Fuchino, André Ottenbereit Maschio Rodriques and Hiroshi Sakai, Strong downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, II — reflection down to the continuum, pre-preprint. http://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-II-x.pdf [3] Sakaé Fuchino, André Ottenbereit Maschio Rodriques and Hiroshi Sakai, Strong downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, III — more on Laver-generically large cardinals, in preparation.

The size of the continuum

• gen. suparcomapct card. (4/11)

◮ The size of the continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large. ⊲ provided that a "reasonable" and sufficiently strong reflection principle should hold.

The size of the continuum (1/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (5/11)

◮ The size of the continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large. ⊲ provided that a "reasonable" and sufficiently strong reflection principle should hold. Theorem 1.

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) implies CH.

Proof

Actually SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) is equivalent with Sean Cox’s

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

Diagonal Reflection Principle for internal clubness + CH. Theorem 2. (a) ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) implies 2ℵ0 = ℵ2.

Proof

(b) ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) is equivalent to Diagonal Reflection

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

Principle for internal clubness (c) SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) is

equivalent to SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) + ¬CH.

Proof

Theorem 3.

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

SDLSint

+ (LPKL stat , < 2ℵ0) implies 2ℵ0 is very large

(e.g. weakly Mahlo, weakly hyper Mahlo, etc.)

Proof

The size of the continuum (2/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (6/11)

◮ The size of the continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large! ⊲ provided that a strong variant of generic large cardinal exists.

The size of the continuum (2/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (6/11)

◮ The size of the continuum is either ℵ1 or ℵ2 or very large! ⊲ provided that a strong variant of generic large cardinal exists. Theorem 1. If there exists a

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

Laver-generically supercompact

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

cardinal κ for σ-closed p.o.s, then κ = ℵ2 and CH holds. More-

• ver MA+ℵ1(σ-closed) holds. Thus SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) also holds.

Theorem 2. If there exists a Laver-generically supercompact car- dinal κ for proper p.o.s, then κ = ℵ2 = 2ℵ0. Moreover PFA+ℵ1

• holds. Thus SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) also holds.

Theorem 3. If there exists a Laver generically supercompact car- dinal κ for c.c.c. p.o.s, then κ ≤ 2ℵ0 and κ is very large (for all regular λ ≥ κ, there is a σ-saturated normal ideal over Pκ(λ)). Moreover MA+µ(ccc, < κ) for all µ < κ and SDLSint

+ (LPKL stat , < κ)

hold.

Consistency of Laver-generically supercompact cardinals

• gen. suparcomapct card. (7/11)

Theorem 1. (1) Suppose that ZFC + “there exists a supercom- pact cardinal” is consistent. Then ZFC + “there exists a Laver- generically supercompact cardinal for σ-closed p.o.s” is consistent as well. (2) Suppose that ZFC + “there exists a superhuge cardinal” is

• consistent. Then ZFC + “there exists a Laver-generically super-

compact cardinal for proper p.o.s” is consistent as well. (3) Suppose that ZFC + “there exists a supercompact cardinal” is

• consistent. Then ZFC + “there exists a strongly Laver-generically

supercompact cardinal for c.c.c. p.o.s” is consistent as well.

• Proof. Starting from a model of ZFC with a supercompact cardinal

κ (a superhuge cardinal in case of (2)), we can obtain models of respective assertions by iterating (in countable support in case of (1), (2) and in finite support in case of (3)) with respective p.o.s κ times along a Laver function (for (1) and (2) Laver function for supercompactness; for (2), Laver function for super- almost-hugeness).

Some more background and open problems

• gen. suparcomapct card. (8/11)

◮ By a slight modification of a proof by B. König, the implication of SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) from the existence of Laver-generically

supercompact cardinal for σ-closed p.o.s can be interpolated by a Game Reflection Principle which by itself characterizes the usual version of generic supercompactness of ℵ2 by σ-closed p.o.s. Problem 1. Does there exist some sort of Game Reflection Principle which plays similar role in the other two scenarios in the trichotomy? Problem 2. Does (some variation of) Laver-generic supercompactness

• f κ for c.c.c. p.o.s imply κ = 2ℵ0?

Problem 3. Is there any characterization of MA++(...) which would fit our context? Problem 4. What is about Laver-generic supercompactness for Cohen reals? What is about Laver-generic supercompactness for stationary preserving p.o.s?

A partial solution of Problem 2

• gen. suparcomapct card. (9/11)

Lemma 1. Suppose that P is a class of p.o.s containing a p.o. P which adds a new real. If κ is a Laver-generically supercompact for P, then κ ≤ 2ℵ0.

• Proof. Let P ∈ P be s.t. any generic filter over P codes a new real.

Suppose that µ < κ. We show that 2ℵ0 > µ. Let a = aξ : ξ < µ be a sequence of subsets of ω. It is enough to show that a does not enumerate P(ω). ◮ By Laver-generic supercompactness of κ for P, there are Q ∈ P with P ≤

• Q, (V, Q)-generic H, transitive M ⊆ V[H] and j ⊆ M[H]

with j : V ≺ → M, crit(j) = κ and P, H ∈ M. Since µ < κ, we have j( a) = a. ◮ Since H ∈ M where G = H ∩ P and G codes a new real not in V, we have M | =“ j( a) does not enumerate 2ℵ0”. ◮ By elementarity, it follows that V | =“ a does not enumerate 2ℵ0”.

A partial solution of Problem 2 (2/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (10/11)

Theorem 2. If κ is ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc p.o.s, then κ = 2ℵ0.

• Proof. Suppose that κ is tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc

p.o.s. By Lemma 1 on the previous slide, we have 2ℵ0 ≥ κ. To prove 2ℵ0 ≤ κ, let λ ≥ κ, 2ℵ0 be large enough and let Q be a ccc p.o. s.t. there are (V, Q)-generic H and j : V ≺ → M ⊆ V[H] with crit(j) = κ, | Q | ≤ j(κ) > λ, H ∈ M and j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. ◮ Since M | =“ j(κ) is regular” by elementarity, j(κ) is also regular in V by the closedness of M. Thus, we have V | =“ j(κ)ℵ0 = j(κ)” by SCH above max{κ, 2ℵ0} (available under the assumption on κ). ◮ Since Q has the ccc and | Q | ≤ j(κ), it follows that V[H] | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. Now we have (j(κ)+)M = (j(κ)+)V[H] by j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. Thus M | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. ◮ By elementarity, it follows that V | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ κ”.

A partial solution of Problem 2 (2/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (10/11)

Theorem 2. If κ is ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc p.o.s, then κ = 2ℵ0.

• Proof. Suppose that κ is tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc

p.o.s. By Lemma 1 on the previous slide, we have 2ℵ0 ≥ κ. To prove 2ℵ0 ≤ κ, let λ ≥ κ, 2ℵ0 be large enough and let Q be a ccc p.o. s.t. there are (V, Q)-generic H and j : V ≺ → M ⊆ V[H] with crit(j) = κ, | Q | ≤ j(κ) > λ, H ∈ M and j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. ◮ Since M | =“ j(κ) is regular” by elementarity, j(κ) is also regular in V by the closedness of M. Thus, we have V | =“ j(κ)ℵ0 = j(κ)” by SCH above max{κ, 2ℵ0} (available under the assumption on κ). ◮ Since Q has the ccc and | Q | ≤ j(κ), it follows that V[H] | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. Now we have (j(κ)+)M = (j(κ)+)V[H] by j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. Thus M | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. ◮ By elementarity, it follows that V | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ κ”.

A partial solution of Problem 2 (2/2)

• gen. suparcomapct card. (10/11)

Theorem 2. If κ is ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc p.o.s, then κ = 2ℵ0.

• Proof. Suppose that κ is tightly Laver-generically superhuge for ccc

p.o.s. By Lemma 1 on the previous slide, we have 2ℵ0 ≥ κ. To prove 2ℵ0 ≤ κ, let λ ≥ κ, 2ℵ0 be large enough and let Q be a ccc p.o. s.t. there are (V, Q)-generic H and j : V ≺ → M ⊆ V[H] with crit(j) = κ, | Q | ≤ j(κ) > λ, H ∈ M and j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. ◮ Since M | =“ j(κ) is regular” by elementarity, j(κ) is also regular in V by the closedness of M. Thus, we have V | =“ j(κ)ℵ0 = j(κ)” by SCH above max{κ, 2ℵ0} (available under the assumption on κ). ◮ Since Q has the ccc and | Q | ≤ j(κ), it follows that V[H] | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. Now we have (j(κ)+)M = (j(κ)+)V[H] by j ′′j(κ) ∈ M. Thus M | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ j(κ)”. ◮ By elementarity, it follows that V | =“ 2ℵ0 ≤ κ”.

Thank you for your attention.

A Proof of: SDLSint

+ (LPKL stat , < 2ℵ0) implies 2ℵ0 is very large.

◮ For a regular cardinal κ and a cardinal λ ≥ κ, S ⊆ Pκ(λ) is said to be 2-stationary if, for any stationary T ⊆ Pκ(λ), there is an a ∈ S s.t. | κ ∩ a | is a regular uncountable cardinal and T ∩ Pκ∩a(a) is stationary in Pκ∩a(a). A regular cardinal κ has the 2-stationarity property if Pκ(λ) is 2-stationary (as a subset of itself) for all λ ≥ κ. Lemma 1. For a regular uncountable κ, SDLSint

+ (LPKL stat , < κ)

implies that κ is 2-stationary. Lemma 2. Suppose that κ is a regular uncountable cardinal. (1) If κ is 2-stationary then κ is a limit cardinal. (2) For any λ ≥ κ, 2-stationary S ⊆ Pκ(λ), and any stationary T ⊆ Pκ(λ), there are stationarily many r ∈ S s.t. T ∩ Pκ∩r(r) is stationary. (3) If κ is 2-stationary then κ is a weakly Mahlo cardinal.

もどる

SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) ⇔ SDLS−(Lℵ0 stat, < ℵ2) + ¬CH.

◮ If SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) holds then 2ℵ0 = ℵ2 by (a). Thus, it follows

that SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) + ¬CH holds.

◮ Suppose SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) holds. Then we have 2ℵ0 ≤ ℵ2 by a

theorem of Todorčević already mentioned. Thus, if 2ℵ0 > ℵ1 in addition, we have 2ℵ0 = ℵ2. Thus SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) follows.

• もどる

Baumgartner’s Theorem

⊲ κ > | M | ≥ | λ ∩ M | ≥ ℵ2 ⊲ there is a club C ⊆ [M]ℵ0 with C ⊆ M Theorem 1 (J.E. Baumgartner). Let ω < κ < λ and κ be

• regular. Then any club subset of [λ]<κ has cardinality ≥ λℵ0.

◮ κ > | M | ≥ | C | ≥ 2ℵ0.

もどる

SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < κ) for κ > ℵ2 implies κ > 2ℵ0.

◮ SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) implies 2ℵ0 ≤ ℵ2: it is easy to see that

SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) implies the reflection principle RP(ω2) in Jech’s

[millennium-book]. RP(ω2) implies 2ℵ0 ≤ ℵ2 (Todorčević). ⊲ It follows that κ > ℵ2 ≥ 2ℵ0. ◮ Thus, we may assume that SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) does not hold.

Hence there is a structure A s.t., for any B ≺−

(Lℵ0

stat) A, we have

B ≥ ℵ2. Let λ = A . W.l.o.g., we may assume that the underlying set of A is λ. Let A∗ = H(λ+), λ, ...

• =A

, ∈. ◮ By SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < κ), there is M ∈ [H(λ+)]<κ s.t.

A∗ ↾ M ≺−

calLℵ0

stat

A∗. It follows that A ↾ (λ ∩ M) ≺−

(Lℵ0

stat) A.

By the choice of A, we have | M | ≥ | λ ∩ M | ≥ ℵ2. ◮ By elementarity, there is C ⊆ [M]ℵ0 ∩ M which is a club in [M]ℵ0. By ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ a theorem of Baumgartner , it follows that κ > | M | ≥ | C | ≥ 2ℵ0.

• もどる

SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) implies 2ℵ0 = ℵ2.

Proposition 1. SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < κ) for κ > ℵ2 implies κ > 2ℵ0.

Proof

◮ Suppose that SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) holds. Then 2ℵ0 ≤ ℵ2 by the

Proposition 1. ◮ SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ1) does not hold since

“there are uncountably many x s.t. ...” is expressible in Lℵ0

• stat. [ e.g. by stat X (∃x (· · · ∧ x ε X)) ]

Thus, 2ℵ0 > ℵ1.

• Corollary 2. SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0) is inconsistent.

• Proof. Assume SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < 2ℵ0). Then SDLS−(Lℵ0 stat, < 2ℵ0)

• holds. Thus 2ℵ0 = ℵ2 by the proof above. But then

SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) holds. By Proposition 1. This implies 2ℵ0 = ℵ0.

This is a contradiction.

• もどる

SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) implies CH.

◮ Suppose that A = H(ω1), ∈ and Let B ∈ [H(ω1)]<ℵ2 be s.t. A ↾ B ≺Lℵ0

stat A. Then for any U ∈ [B]ℵ0 we have

A | = “∃x ∀y (y ∈ x ↔ y ε U)”. ◮ By elementarity we also have B | = “∃x ∀y (y ∈ x ↔ y ε U)”. ⊲ It follows that U ∈ B. Thus [B]ℵ0 ⊆ B and 2ℵ0 ≤ | B | ≤ ℵ1.

• もどる

Strong Downward Löwneheim-Skolem Theorem for stationary logic ⊲ Lℵ0

stat is a weak second order logic with monadic second-order

variables X, Y etc. which run over the countable subsets of the underlying set of a structure. The logic has only the weak second

• rder quantifier “stat” and its dual “aa” (but not the second-order

existential (or universal) quantifiers) with the interpretation: A | = stat X ϕ(..., X) :⇔ {U ∈ [A]ℵ0 : A | = ϕ(..., U)} is a stationary subset of [A]ℵ0. ⊲ For B = B, ... ⊆ A, B ≺Lℵ0

stat A

:⇔ B | = ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ...) ⇔ A | = ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ...) for all Lℵ0

stat-formula

ϕ = ϕ(x0, ..., X0, ...) and for all a0, ... ∈ B and for all U0, ... ∈ [B]ℵ0. ◮ SDLS(Lℵ0

stat, < κ)

:⇔ For any structure A = A, ... of countable signature, there is a structure B of size < κ s.t. B ≺Lℵ0

stat A. もどる

A weakening of the Strong Downward Löwneheim-Skolem Theorem ⊲ For B = B, ... ⊆ A, B ≺−

Lℵ0

stat

A :⇔ B | = ϕ(a0, ...) ⇔ A | = ϕ(a0, ...) for all Lℵ0

stat-formula ϕ = ϕ(x0, ...)

without free seond-order variables and for all a0, ... ∈ B. ◮ SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < κ)

:⇔ For any structure A = A, ... of countable signature, there is a structure B of size < κ s.t. B ≺−

Lℵ0

stat

A.

もどる

Strong Downward Löwneheim-Skolem Theorem for PKL logic ⊲ LPKL

stat is the weak second-order logic with monadic second order

variables X, Y , etc. with built-in unary predicate symbol K . The monadic seond order variables run over elements of PK A(A) for a structure A = A, K A, ... where we denote PS(T) = P| S |(T) = {u ⊆ T : | u | < | S |}. The logic has the unique second order quantifier “stat” (and its dual). ⊲ The internal interpretation of the quantifier is defined by: A | =int stat X ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ..., X) :⇔ {U ∈ PK A(A) ∩ A : A | =int ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ..., U)} is a stationary subset of PK A(A) for a0, ...A and U0, ... ∈ PK A(A) ∩ A. ⊲ For B = B, K ∩ B, ... ⊆ A = A, K, ..., B ≺int

LPKL

stat A

:⇔ B | =int ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ...) ⇔ A | =int ϕ(a0, ..., U0, ...) for all Lℵ0

stat-formula ϕ = ϕ(x0, ...) a0, ... ∈ B and U0, ... ∈ PK∩B(B) ∩ B.

Strong Downward Löwneheim-Skolem Theorem for PKL logic (2/2) ◮ SDLSint(LPKL

stat , < κ)

:⇔ for any regular λ ≥ κ and a structuer A = A, K, ... of countable signature with | A | = λ and | K | = κ. H(λ), κ, ∈, there is a structure B of size < κ s.t. B ≺int

LPKL

stat A.

◮ SDLSint

+ (LPKL stat , < κ)

:⇔ for any regular λ ≥ κ and a structuer A = A, K, ... of countable signature with | A | = λ and | K | = κ. H(λ), κ, ∈, there are stationarily many structures B of size < κ s.t. B ≺int

LPKL

stat A. もどる

Laver generically supercompact cardinals ◮ For a class P of p.o.s, a cardinal κ is a Laver-generically supercomact for P if, for all regular λ ≥ κ and P ∈ P there is Q ∈ P with P ≤

• Q, s.t., for any (V, Q)-generic H, there are a inner

model M ⊆ V[H], and an elementary embedding j : V → M s.t. (1) crit(j) = κ, j(κ) > λ. (2) P, H ∈ M, (3) j ′′λ ∈ M.

もどる

tightly Laver generically superhuge cardinals ◮ For a class P of p.o.s, a cardinal κ is a tightly Laver-generically superhuge for P if, for all regular λ ≥ κ and P ∈ P there is Q ∈ P with P ≤

• Q, s.t., for any (V, Q)-generic H, there are a inner model

M ⊆ V[H], and an elementary embedding j : V → M s.t. (1) crit(j) = κ, j(κ) > λ. (2) P, H ∈ M, (3) j ′′j(κ) ∈ M, and (4) | Q | ≤ j(κ).

もどる

Diagonal Reflection Principle

◮ (S. Cox) For a regular cardinal θ > ℵ1: DRP(θ, IC): There are stationarily many M ∈ [H((θℵ0)+)]ℵ1 s.t.

(1) M ∩ H(θ) is ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ internally club ; (2) for all R ∈ M s.t. R is a stationary subset of [θ]ℵ0, R ∩ [θ ∩ M]ℵ0 is stationary in [θ ∩ M]ℵ0.

◮ For a regular cardinal λ > ℵ1 (∗)λ: For any countable expansion ˜ A of H(λ), ∈, if Sa : a ∈ H(λ), is a family of stationary subsets of [H(λ)]ℵ0, then there is an internally club M ∈ [H(λ)]ℵ1 s.t. ˜ A ↾ M ≺ ˜ A and Sa ∩ [M]ℵ0 is stationary in [M]ℵ0, for all a ∈ M. Proposition 1. TFAE: (a) The global version of Diagonal Reflec- tion Principle of S.Cox for internal clubness (i.e. DRP(θ, IC) for all regular θ > ℵ1) holds. (b) (∗)λ for all regular λ > ℵ1 holds.

もどる

Diagonal Reflection Principle

◮ (S. Cox) For a regular cardinal θ > ℵ1: DRP(θ, IC): There are stationarily many M ∈ [H((θℵ0)+)]ℵ1 s.t.

(1) M ∩ H(θ) is ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ internally club ; (2) for all R ∈ M s.t. R is a stationary subset of [θ]ℵ0, R ∩ [θ ∩ M]ℵ0 is stationary in [θ ∩ M]ℵ0.

◮ For a regular cardinal λ > ℵ1 (∗)λ: For any countable expansion ˜ A of H(λ), ∈, if Sa : a ∈ H(λ), is a family of stationary subsets of [H(λ)]ℵ0, then there is an internally club M ∈ [H(λ)]ℵ1 s.t. ˜ A ↾ M ≺ ˜ A and Sa ∩ [M]ℵ0 is stationary in [M]ℵ0, for all a ∈ M. Proposition 1. TFAE: (a) The global version of Diagonal Reflec- tion Principle of S.Cox for internal clubness (i.e. DRP(θ, IC) for all regular θ > ℵ1) holds. (b) (∗)λ for all regular λ > ℵ1 holds. (c) SDLS−(Lℵ0

stat, < ℵ2) holds.

もどる

Reflection Principles RP??

◮ The following are variations of the “Reflection Principle” in [Jech, Millennium Book]. RPIC For any uncountable cardinal λ, stationary S ⊆ [H(λ)]ℵ0 and any countable expansion A of the structure H(λ), ∈, there is an ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ internally club M ∈ [H(λ)]ℵ1 s.t. (1) A ↾ M ≺ A; and (2) S ∩ [M]ℵ0 is stationary in [M]ℵ0. RPIU For any uncountable cardinal λ, stationary S ⊆ [H(λ)]ℵ0 and any countable expansion A of the structure H(λ), ∈, there is an ✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿ internally unbounded M ∈ [H(λ)]ℵ1 s.t. (1) A ↾ M ≺ A; and (2) S ∩ [M]ℵ0 is stationary in [M]ℵ0. Since every internally club M is internally unbounded, we have: Lemma 1. RPIC implies RPIU. RPIU is also called Axiom R in Set-Theoretic Topology. Theorem 2. ([Fuchino, Juhasz etal. 2010]) RPIU implies FRP.

もどる

Stationary subsets of [X]ℵ0

◮ C ⊆ [X]ℵ0 is club in [X]ℵ0 if (1) for every u ∈ [X]ℵ0, there is v ∈ C with u ⊆ v; and (2) for any countable increasing chain F in C we have F ∈ C. ⊲ S ⊆ [X]ℵ0 is stationary in [X]ℵ0 if S ∩ C = ∅ for all club C ⊆ [X]ℵ0. ◮ A set M is internally unbounded if M ∩ [M]ℵ0 is cofinal in [M]ℵ0 (w.r.t. ⊆) ⊲ A set M is internally stationary if M ∩ [M]ℵ0 is stationary in [M]ℵ0 ⊲ A set M is internally club if M ∩ [M]ℵ0 contains a club in [M]ℵ0.

“ Diagonal Reflection Principle” にもどる “ RP??” にもどる

Fodor-type Reflection Principle (FRP)

(FRP) For any regular κ > ω1, any stationary E ⊆ E κ

ω and any

mapping g : E → [κ]ℵ0 with g(α) ⊆ α for all α ∈ E, there is γ ∈ E κ

ω1 s.t.

(*) for any I ∈ [γ]ℵ1 closed w.r.t. g and club in γ, if Iα : α < ω1 is a filtration of I then sup(Iα) ∈ E and g(sup(Iα)) ⊆ Iα hold for stationarily many α < ω1. ⊲ F = Iα : α < λ is a filtration of I if F is a continuously increasing ⊆-sequence of subsets of I of cardinality < | I | s.t. I =

α<λ Iα.

◮ FRP follows from Martin’s Maximum or Rado’s Conjecture. MA+(σ-closed) already implies FRP but PFA does not imply FRP since PFA does not imply stationary reflection of subsets of E ω2

ω

(Magidor, Beaudoin) which is a consequence of FRP. ◮ FRP is a large cardinal property: FRP implies the total failure of the square principle. ⊲ FRP is known to be equivalent to the reflection of uncountable coloring number of graphs down to cardinality < ℵ2.

もどる

Proof of Fact 1

Fact 1. (A. Hajnal and I. Juhász, 1976) For any uncountable cardi- nal κ there is a non-metrizable space X of size κ s.t. all subspaces Y of X of cardinality < κ are metrizable. Proof. ◮ Let κ′ ≥ κ be of cofinality ≥ κ, ω1. ⊲ The topological space (κ′ + 1, O) with O = P(κ′) ∪ {(κ′ \ x) ∪ {κ′} : x ⊆ κ′, x is bounded in κ′} is non-metrizable since the point κ′ has character = cf(κ′) > ℵ0. ⊲ Any subspace of κ′ + 1 of size < κ is discrete and hence metrizable.

• もどる

Proof of Fact 3

◮ It is enough to prove the following: Lemma 1. (Folklore ?, see [Fuchino, Juhasz etal. 2010]) For a regular cardinal κ ≥ ℵ2 if, there is a

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

non-reflectingly stationary S ⊆ E κ

ω ,

then there is a non

✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿

meta-lindelöf (and hence non metrizable) locally compact and locally countable topological space X of cardinality κ s.t. all sub- space Y of X of cardinality < κ are metrizable. Proof. ◮ Let I = {α + 1 : α < κ} and X = S ∪ I. ⊲ Let aα : α ∈ S be s.t. aα ∈ [I ∩ α]ℵ0, aα is of order-type ω and cofinal in α. Let O be the topology on X introduced by letting (1) elements of I are isolated; and (2) {aα ∪ {α} \ β : β < α} a neighborhood base of each α ∈ S. ◮ Then (X, O) is not meta-lindelöf (by Fodor’s Lemma) but each α < κ as subspace of X is metrizable (by induction on α).

もどる

Coloring number and chromatic number of a graph

◮ For a cardinal κ ∈ Card, a graph G = G, K has coloring number ≤ κ if there is a well-ordering ⊑ on G s.t. for all p ∈ G the set {q ∈ G : q ⊑ p and q K p} has cardinality < κ.

もどる

⊲ The coloring number col(G) of a graph G is the minimal cardinal among such κ as above. ◮ The chromatic number chr(G) of a graph G = G, K is the minimal cardinal κ s.t. G can be partitioned into κ pieces G =

α<κ Gα s.t. each Gα is pairwise non adjacent (independent).

⊲ For all graph G we have chr(G) ≤ col(G).

もどる

κ-special trees

◮ For a cardinal κ, a tree T is said to be κ-special if T can be represented as a union of κ subsets Tα, α < κ s.t. each Tα is an antichain (i.e. pairwise incomparable set).

もどる

Stationary subset of E κ

ω

◮ For a cardinal κ, E κ

ω = {γ < κ : cf(γ) = ω}.

◮ A subset C ⊆ ξ of an ordinal ξ of uncountable cofinality, C is closed unbounded (club) in ξ if (1): C is cofinal in ξ (w.r.t. the canonical

• rdering of ordinals) and (2): for all η < ξ, if C ∩ η is cofinal in η

then η ∈ C. ◮ S ⊆ ξ is stationary if S ∩ C = ∅ for all club C ⊆ ξ. ◮ A stationary S ⊆ ξ if reflectingly stationary if there is some η < ξ of uncountable cofinality s.t.S ∩ η is stationary in η. Thus: ◮ A stationary S ⊆ ξ if non reflectingly stationary if S ∩ η is non stationary for all η < ξ of uncountable cofinality.

もどる

Proof of Theorem 1.

CH ⇒ SDLS(Lℵ0,II, < ℵ2): For a structure A with a countable signature L and underlying set A, let θ be large enough and ˜ A = H(θ), A, A, ∈. where A = A

˜ A for a unary predicate symbol

A and A = A ˜

A for a constant symbol A. Let ˜

B ≺ ˜ A be s.t.| B | = ℵ1 for the underlying set B of B and [B]ℵ0 ⊆ B. B = A ↾ A

˜ B is then as desired.

SDLS(Lℵ0, < ℵ2) ⇒ CH: Suppose A = {ω2 ∪ [ω2]ℵ0, ∈}. Consider the Lℵ0-formula ϕ(X) = ∃x∀y (y ∈ x ↔ y ε X). If B = B, ... is s.t. | B | ≤ ℵ1 and B ≺Lℵ0, then for C ∈ [B]ℵ0, since A | = ϕ(C), we have B | = ϕ(C). It dollows that [B]ℵ0 ⊆ B and 2ℵ0 ≤ (| B |)ℵ0 ≤ | B | = ℵ1.

もどる